This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
How an embattled energy storage project in Acton, California, is threatening faster federal permits.

One hour north of Los Angeles, the small town of Acton is experiencing a battery energy storage buildout — and quickly becoming the must-watch frontline in the backlash against lithium-ion energy storage systems. The flashpoint: wildfires.
Like many parts of California, Acton has hot summers with heavy winds, putting it at elevated risk of the kind blaze that makes national headlines. Battery storage fires, while rare, are a unique threat, with relatively little data available about them to help regulators or the public understand the risk. People in Acton wondered: Would they really be safe if a wildfire engulfed a battery storage site, or if a battery failure sparked a new conflagration?
When L.A. County blessed the first battery energy storage system project in Acton last year, developers and local fire officials said they were doing everything in their power to ensure the batteries would meet safety standards. Residents were far from convinced.
“This will turn our community into industrial hell and it’ll erase us from the face of the Earth,” Jacqueline Ayer, a member of Acton’s town council, told me. Ayer is helping lead the local fight against the projects.
I’ve now spent more than a month researching the fight in Acton. In the process, I’ve learned how much — or little — we know about when battery energy storage and wildfires mix. We’ll get to that later in this story. To be honest, debunking battery fire risk wasn’t why I spent a month on Acton. It was what happened when the fears took hold.
Feeling they’d been failed by both the regulatory approval process and the court system, the Acton project’s opponents turned to their representative in Washington, House Republican Mike Garcia. Though Garcia can’t do anything to stop this particular project, he can severely hinder future ones: As Heatmap can exclusively report, after lobbying from Acton, Garcia inserted language into the annual funding bill for the Department of Energy that would block it from implementing a new rule designed to expedite permits for federally funded battery projects.
“What we’re hoping is that [with Garcia] being at the federal level, he’ll shed some light to the people at the top,” said Ruthie Brock of the activist group Acton Takes Action, “because if the top becomes informed, it’ll trickle down to local governments.”
This is why the Acton fight is so important — it demonstrates the risk of failing to obtain community buy-in, which can ricochet in ways no one intended. The political and media environments are quick to sensationalize the downsides of renewable energy, creating a tinderbox atmosphere in which small local fights can quickly become national ones.
On some level, a fight over battery fires going national was inevitable. Across the country, from New York to Washington state, communities are revolting against battery energy storage sites coming to their backyards. Often, those opposed cite the feared threat of fires or explosions.
Fires in battery energy storage systems, a.k.a. BESS, are quite rare. According to what data is available, the number of fires has stayed relatively flat even as deployment has grown drastically. There were fewer than 10 failure events in the U.S. in 2023, and there have been even fewer so far this year.
But when a fire does happen, experts say it can be quite difficult to put out. In some cases, there’s nothing a community can do other than let the blaze run.
“There’s a lack of consensus. There’s a lot of experts out there providing guidance, and that’s something we’re trying to work on with training throughout the country,” Victoria Hutchinson, an engineer with the Fire Protection Research Foundation, told me. “[It’ll] instill some fear in the meantime we figure out the best approach.”
Information on BESS and wildfires is even less available. Guillermo Rein, a professor of fire science and the editor-in-chief of the journal Fire Technology, told me the matter has not really been studied.
“When I say [BESS are] new, I mean really new,” Rein said. “We hardly know how it works when it gets [on] fire and we don’t have many technologies that are proven to work. We have technologies that we wish will work, but proven technologies that work are very rare. That means we have a new hazard we are struggling to understand and in the meantime, we don’t know how to protect against it.”
Los Angeles County approved Acton’s first battery storage system — Humidor, a 300 megawatt project by Hecate Energy — last summer through an expedited “ministerial” process, the local equivalent of a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act. Ministerial reviews and categorical exclusions are used by regulators to skip the drawn out process of an environmental review because they can reasonably predict a lack of significant impact. Joseph Horvath, a spokesperson for L.A. County Planning, gave me a statement defending the approval and stating BESS projects must meet all local and state zoning and fire codes to receive a ministerial approval.
California had identified the Acton community back in 2021 as a potential site for energy storage to protect against future power shut offs. Acton made sense because it’s close to the SoCal Edison Vincent substation, making it well positioned to connect to the grid. There was also a real sense of urgency: To achieve its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, the state estimates it will need to install a projected 52,000 megawatts or more of battery storage. Humidor is the first of what appears to be multiple projects being planned for the area, including two more Hecate facilities according to materials on the company’s website.
Convinced that a battery boom could mix poorly with extreme fire risk, and that the county moved far too fast to approve Humidor, Acton residents sued. The county, they argued, had little reason to conclude the facility would have an insignificant impact on the environment — so few BESS projects have been approved that the county used the standards from a different kind of project — an electrical substation — to draw that conclusion. L.A. County Planning told me they chose this comparison for reasons including the “purpose of BESS and its connection to the larger network for distributive purposes.”
Rein told me that at least when it comes to the fire risk, this isn’t an accurate comparison, and that there’s not actually enough data to claim such a facility would have an insignificant impact. “I would put great efforts into making sure this facility is safe,” he said. “They can’t just say, I met the regulation, I did enough. Because it’s a new hazard.”
Many of those in Acton opposed to the project believe the approval was rushed, and claim that little information was made available to the public as it was going through the county’s process. Furious residents have told county planners that the Acton town council was not notified in advance that an approval was on its way. They testified before the county board of supervisors that Hecate held only a single public meeting to discuss what it intended to build, with little notice given to potentially concerned citizens.
In my experience as a journalist reporting on large energy projects with serious community impacts, transparency is key to getting local buy-in to build a project. For years I covered the mining industry, where innumerable decades of toxic waste spills and labor scandals have forced companies to really innovate and spend serious dough on obtaining “social license to operate,” a term developers and investors use to describe acceptance to a company’s business practices.
This, of course, differs from the YIMBY school of thought that companies and governments should eschew frustrated municipalities to pursue the overriding net good of climate action. There are certainly merits to this argument, especially when it comes to communities that won’t take yes for an answer, and we’ll be exploring case studies supporting that view in future editions of The Fight.
I’m on the fence about whether Acton is one of those cases, though. Ayer, an environmental engineer by trade, told me she supports decarbonization and wants to see climate action happen. She just wants to feel assured the technology is safe.
If it wasn’t a lithium-ion battery storage facility “I would feel comfortable,” she said. “We will shoulder some of the weight. But it isn’t right that we shoulder all of the weight.”
When I tried to talk to Hecate about Acton’s wildfire concerns and how the company had engaged with the community, a company spokesperson, Bobby Howard, declined to make anyone available for an interview citing “ongoing litigation related to the subject.” Howard provided a factbook that said only that Humidor would “meet or exceed” local and state fire codes — without specifying which codes — and detailed some of the outreach the company did, including the public meeting as well as mailers to “thousands of individuals throughout the greater Los Angeles area, including civically engaged individuals throughout Acton.”
Howard declined to answer questions requesting more information about the company’s public outreach and wildfire planning. He did tell the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that Humidor would have “seismic bracing, safety zones around the perimeter, substantial setbacks from parcel boundaries, gravel breaks and a masonry wall around the facility.”
Stanford University senior research scholar and legal energy expert Michael Wara explained to me that in cases like these, having buy-in from the community is important to avoiding litigation and social blowback. “That is losing,” Wara said. “You have not served your client if you end up in litigation.”
“Having a process by which people are informed about a project and have an opportunity to provide input is important for buy-in for all kinds of projects related to the energy transition if you want to build in a democratic society,” he said. “Is it really the fire risk the community is concerned about?”
When it comes to the Acton battery fight, it’s the fears of fire that scare me the most, not the fire itself.
I sought reasons to be optimistic about putting battery energy storage in areas like Acton that are prone to wildfire because, well, California is essentially one big fire risk zone. James Campbell, a wildfire policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that battery energy storage decreases net wildfire risk compared to gas storage tanks and pipelines. “If we consider the whole-climate trade-offs, battery systems are much safer,” he said.
On its end, Hecate claimed in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors that a BESS fire has never traveled off-site, and that because the fires are fueled by flammable gasses, there is minimal risk of embers traveling elsewhere and igniting grass or bushes. The company pointed me to this letter when I reached out for comment.
“Nothing about fire risk mitigation is about certainty. It’s more, risk mitigation and fire is kind of like wearing a seatbelt,” Wara told me. “If you’re going 120 miles an hour down the highway and you get in a high-speed collision, your seatbelt will not save you. [But] there’s rapid advances in how these systems work.”
In the end, he added, meeting California’s carbon emissions targets will “probably mean building somewhere that there is non-trivial wildfire risk.”
What’s happening to offshore wind should be a cautionary tale for developers considering whether sinking time and money into community relations is really worth it: Last year, coastal fishermen and beach town mayors in New Jersey joined forces with fossil fuel funding and right-wing agitators to foment a conspiracy-infused campaign against offshore wind that has truly rattled the future of the industry.
Part of that offshore wind backlash grew out of New Jersey Republicans in Congress using the pulpit of their offices and filing amendments to legislation. As Garcia takes up Acton’s cause, I do wonder whether battery energy storage might be next. November’s election makes it less likely his language hindering expedited approvals for BESS projects will make it into the final funding bill, and Garcia’s office did not respond to requests to discuss its prospects.
But regardless, it’s an ember that could become a fire of its own.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Talking with Arnab Pal, the executive director of Deploy Action.
This week’s conversation is with Arnab Pal, executive director of Deploy Action, president of Clean Infrastructure Advisors, and former principal advisor at the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office under the Biden administration alongside Jigar Shah.
I reached out to Pal for guidance on where he saw state-level policy going around renewables development after the 2026 blue wave election. Simply put, few could’ve provided better guidance. We have no idea what could happen next after an unprecedented election result, but he couldn’t have been more clear-eyed and, as he put it to me, focused on the future. I appreciated our conversation and decided it was worthwhile to provide it to you in full.
The following transcript was lightly edited for clarity.
When it comes to state policy, what opportunities are created by this blue wave election?
I think this opens up a bunch of possibilities but I also think we also need to be very careful in understanding what the election was about in terms of what we focus on in the energy sector. The focus was on affordability. That was the number one message. On electricity, housing, gas.
The problems I see from these wave elections is that somebody wins — a party, an ideology — after campaigning on something and then they govern on something completely different. The message to take away here is, people can’t afford their day-to-day lives. What we’re working on at Deploy Action and other groups focused on electricity and energy, we’re all really focusing on the issue of consumer protection and affordability. We should not try to package in our own individual goals and call it affordability.
One of the starkest results, at least to me, was what happened in states where permitting had been streamlined for renewable energy — Wisconsin, Michigan, New York. The Republicans campaigned against those laws streamlining those permits and lost handily. How do you see these results affecting permitting certainty for renewable energy at the state level in parts of the country?
If it truly addresses affordability, I think permitting is certainly on the table. Especially because governors are going to be judged on what they accomplished and some of these states are going to be having a Democratic governor for the first time in one or two decades. I think they’re going to really hone in on that. And a lot of permitting is state-level. Conversations around federal permitting are often around transmission — a lot of the project-level is at the state level.
But permitting is really only one part of the puzzle. It’s the part everyone likes to focus on because it’s easier to understand. There’s also the market structures of how utilities operate. How they’re incentivized to make money. How they bring on new customers. That’s really going to determine how we bring down bills, or at the very least limit the increases in these bills over the next five or ten years.
Can you give some examples?
So one of the things we focus on [at Deploy Action] is trying to not change the utility business model but alter it to take into account efficiency, especially when it comes to transmission and distribution. Right now utilities’ cap-ex and their ability to earn a return on that is building transmission and distribution lines. In some places it’s generation too. What we’re saying is, we need to create an incentive structure where they’re first incentivized to use existing lines, so as you bring more customers online it reduces the need for new infrastructure per customer which will ultimately bring down costs for everyone.
The perfect example here, and another policy example here, is data centers. It’s completely understandable why they ran against them and why the public is not a fan. But there’s a way to do data centers intelligently in a way to reduce people’s bills. The way to do that is not these monstrosities but smaller data centers that can be coupled with battery storage and renewables instead of gas and diesel. These smaller ones can be used as their own distribution resource which allows you to bring on new paying customers without building more lines. These are things we’ve been working on in Virginia, in California to a lesser extent and in Pennsylvania, and the election opens up the possibility to do more of this work.
How do these state-level data center moratoria affect renewable energy development?
It depends.
I think there’s a very nuanced and smart compromise to be had. These new governors need to consider that instead of an outright ban there needs to be an understanding there are data centers of a certain size that can actually be beneficial to ratepayers and done without using massive amounts of water and renewables. The moratoria needs to turn into policy. The way to get a policy in place that’ll help people every day with their lives and their bills while actually preventing some of the harms people are thinking about with data centers is to set that size limit.
Do these pauses affect transmission development?
It shouldn’t theoretically. I think the argument that would come up though is people would say big data centers would mean more demand for more transmission. And yes, we want more demand growth but you want to build more transmission to bring down costs. You don’t want to build more transmission just to build more transmission.
What do you think is the biggest challenge this election result poses for renewable energy?
Focus.
Here’s the thing: It’s a new election. People will have tons of ideas. The renewables’ best argument is we are the cheapest solution and oftentimes the fastest solution. If what you’re trying to do is bring on new demand, whether it’s for EVs or for certain types of data centers, and then at the least cost supply for that demand.
There’s a lot of things we can focus on with renewables but if we stick to the purpose of this being to bring down people’s bills and create a steady grid for everyone then, well, the opportunities are strong and will be available to us in the industry.
Evidence suggests data center concerns probably didn’t actually flip many votes.
This week’s midterm elections were undeniably horrible for the data center industry. But a closer look indicates dominant media narratives about the impact of AI infrastructure on voting behavior also deserve more scrutiny.
On election night, candidates who railed against data center sprawl during their campaigns won across the country, including statewide races in red areas. The most striking example was Gina Hinojosa, now governor-elect for the data center-centric state of Texas, who ran on instituting a complete pause on projects across the Lone Star State. So striking was her win, it sent AI and data center stocks into freefall. Cleanview, a clean energy news and data site, said Hinojosa’s pause, if put into effect, could affect up to 88.4 gigawatts of “planned” data center development, depending on how it's implemented.
It’s true data centers were this year’s election boogeyman. However, a deeper dive into the results we have thus far tells us crucial nuance is necessary in the discourse about the midterms and the impacts data centers had on voting behavior.
Two important questions must be asked. First, did data centers play a key role in the 2026 midterm elections? Yes — and no.
One can easily make the case that data centers were instrumental to Democrats winning big because, by and large, they chose data centers as a go-to punching bag in attack ads against Republican candidates. Analysis ahead of Election Day by Tech Oversight Project — an outfit run by former Democratic staffers — found 136 federal and gubernatorial races used “tech accountability messaging in paid media,” including 74% of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s target seats to flip for House control. Much of this advertising focused on tying GOP lawmakers to data centers, whether by connecting the GOP’s recent tax cuts bill to lower taxes on data centers or alleging Republicans held stocks in, or took donations from, data center developers.
This echoes Heatmap Pro’s most recent polling, which shows that Americans say the tech industry has a uniquely firm hold over the Trump administration. When asked if large technology companies have more influence over the government than other large industries, like finance and oil and gas, 64% of Americans said yes.

It’s certainly true Democrats capitalized on public opinion souring on data centers with ads that sought to tie GOP candidates to the unpopular industry. Some of these ads focused solely on data centers, like this ad against Republican Representative Brad Finstad in Minnesota, whose district included the controversial Google data center project in Pine Island I’ve previously reported on. Finstad’s likely to lose his seat; his Democratic opponent, Jake Johnson, has claimed victory, but the race is likely to go to a recount. Democrats also ran data center-only ads in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District, a community already angry about transmission lines that then voted for Democrat Rebecca Cooke to replace Republican incumbentDerrick Van Orden. And Democrats used this strategy in ads in Montana’s 1st Congressional District, which is now controlled by a Democrat, as well as in South Carolina’s 1st, which is now also blue.
However, there is also evidence that data centers did not decide key statewide races. David Crowley, a Democrat who was perceived as weaker on this issue, won the Wisconsin gubernatorial race by eight points, in keeping with the state’s leftward swing. The same is true for Byron Donalds, a Republican who overcame data center attacks to become Florida’s first Black governor.
This brings us to the second key question: Did data center development in local communities flip any votes? We have no way of knowing for sure, because data centers are unpopular across party lines and there’s evidence at least some voters saw opposing a data center as compatible with voting for their preferred political party because other issues also matter to them.
There is a crucial difference between data centers being unpopular and local data center development affecting how people vote for higher office. We see this in the midterms data, as communities actively fighting data centers in their backyards continued to vote Republican like before. I’d also note this data has significant limitations, as it’s challenging to separate a community getting bluer from the relevance or use of political attacks tied to data centers.
At most, where movement was registered, these sorts of towns, cities, and counties moved in line with the national partisan swing toward Democrats.
We can see this dynamic playing out in Ohio, where voters across the state weighed in on 21 ballot initiatives about data center development. In all cases, these ballot initiatives were either approved or rejected in order to block development — i.e., the data centers lost all of them. However, when you drill down to the precinct-level data, communities simultaneously voted against their local data center while continuing to support the Republican in higher office. Perhaps some folks split their tickets; others decidedly did not.
Take Conneaut, the northernmost city in Ohio, located in Ashtabula County on the rim of Lake Erie, which overwhelmingly voted to institute a moratorium on large data centers within city limits. Some precincts voted for Democrat Amy Acton to be governor, while others went overwhelmingly for Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican candidate. Two-thirds of them also voted yes on the moratorium. (Precinct-level data here for transparency!)
The state’s 21 ballot initiatives were the project of Conserve Ohio, a new grassroots organization founded explicitly to advocate against data center development from an apolitical perspective. Austin Baurichter, one of the organization’s founders, told me at least 65% of the volunteers with his organization have been “historical Republicans” and “historical Trumpers,” and he acknowledged there is potential this issue has “moved people around politically."
Baurichter said he has no proof yet whether any of the ballot initiatives led communities that were once Republican to turn blue. He was open to the idea that may have happened somewhere in the state. But he also bristled at the suggestion, because what he’s seeing on the ground is what Heatmap polling also shows: Republicans are upset at data centers, and those feelings are apolitical and nonpartisan.
“The fact there was a blue wave indicates that people did something different at the polls, but I frame it less as a switching of parties and more as an abandoning of the two-party system,” he told me. “These efforts to understand are well expended. But I think a lot is up in the air.”
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. McCracken County, Kentucky – A rare bright spot for the data center sector quietly occurred in deep red Kentucky in a race defined by what’ll likely be the first project built on federal land.
2. Pulaski County, Arkansas – After a blue wave election in Little Rock, this county government is on a collision course with data center development.
3. Lyon County, Kansas – You probably heard about all the communities that voted on data center ballot initiatives during the midterms, but did you know at least one also restricted battery storage?
4. Central Maryland – Oh, one last piece of non-election news: The conflict over the Piedmont Reliability Project transmission lines is now before the Supreme Court.